Media Companies Are Ready to Sell. Does Anyone Want to Buy?

[tall_guy1]

Yep. Netflix and I go back 20 years, counting the DVD. It's a brand I know, its a service that has never let me down, and there's a lot of content that I want to see on their platform.

Though aren't some streamers extensions of brands people know? If people are avid CBS fans or like the Viacom-inherited stations, Paramount would feel quite familiar to those people. It could be the same with NBC and their cable-owned networks, as well.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

Consolidation occurs in every industry. First phase usually gets you down to a "Big 3" situation. Sometimes it goes to two majors in a category. And the only reason it doesn't go to one is anti-trust laws, which I support.

Would you support it if there weren't anti-trust laws meant to prevent a monopoly? Sounds like that's the only thing getting in the way of the idea for you.

Two is a duopoly. Three is still an oligopoly -- great if you're one of the privileged few at the top of the food chain -- but when has such lack of competition and concentrated power, especially over a product that affects everyone, ever been beneficial to the public?

 

[Voicetrack of Reason]

Dude.

Go outside.

Read a book.

Knock over a liquor store.

Something.

This reminds me of the episode of Sanford & Son, where Fred needed intervention, because he was "Addicted to color TV" 🤣

 

[Mikey Radio]

Though aren't some streamers extensions of brands people know? If people are avid CBS fans or like the Viacom-inherited stations, Paramount would feel quite familiar to those people. It could be the same with NBC and their cable-owned networks, as well.

Two is a duopoly. Three is still an oligopoly -- great if you're one of the privileged few at the top of the food chain -- but when has such lack of competition and concentrated power, especially over a product that affects everyone, ever been beneficial to the public?

But what it boils down to, at least partially, is that in order for all these many companies to make their streaming services viable financially, they need to charge $$ for them. Consumers aren't willing or in some cases able to pay so much for so many different streaming services, at least at full price (black Friday deals that were mentioned previously not withstanding). That means people are going to subscribe to the services with the best/most content or the content they're most interested in. With so many streaming services out there vying for customers right now, it's a lot of slices of the pie dividing up the $$ from those consumers and vying for their money. Once this all shakes out further, some streamers will fail, others will consolidate or bundle, others may chug along but may not be terribly profitable or be loss leaders. Left standing will be a core handful of successful streamers, perhaps existing ones that will bundle or consolidate, with the best/most content or most attractive content that will have the biggest customer bases. It's not an "opoly" or concentration of power over a product per se...It's what the market will support. Personally I don't think people are hung up on provider names like Peacock or Paramount because of their network affiliations. It's the shows, movies, programming and content they care about. They don't care which streaming service they get it from or what it's called.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

Left standing will be a core handful of successful streamers, perhaps existing ones that will bundle or consolidate, with the best/most content or most attractive content that will have the biggest customer bases. It's not an "opoly" or concentration of power over a product per se

Yes it is.

oligopoly [ol-i-gop-uh-lee]

the market condition that exists when there are few sellers, as a result of which they can greatly influence price and other market factors.: Compare duopoly, monopoly

 

[michael hagerty]

Would you support it if there weren't anti-trust laws meant to prevent a monopoly?

That's either a dumb question or a disingenuous one.

Here's what I said again:

Consolidation occurs in every industry. First phase usually gets you down to a "Big 3" situation. Sometimes it goes to two majors in a category. And the only reason it doesn't go to one is anti-trust laws, which I support.

That means I support anti-trust laws. If they didn't exist, I'd believe they need to.

Sounds like that's the only thing getting in the way of the idea for you.

No, what I said---which is factual---is that anti-trust laws (which I support), are the only thing getting in the way of monopolies.

Two is a duopoly. Three is still an oligopoly -- great if you're one of the privileged few at the top of the food chain -- but when has such lack of competition and concentrated power, especially over a product that affects everyone, ever been beneficial to the public?

If eight major streamers can be profitable, I have no problem with that. If they can't (and there's growing evidence that not only can't they, but that the stragglers are painfully aware of it), then that's going to be resolved, likely in ways that are standard practice in business, and I (not holding stock in any of those companies) don't get a vote on that.

 

[michael hagerty]

Though aren't some streamers extensions of brands people know? If people are avid CBS fans or like the Viacom-inherited stations, Paramount would feel quite familiar to those people. It could be the same with NBC and their cable-owned networks, as well.

Avid fans of networks are vanishingly rare. People watch shows, not networks.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

Even with 7-8 major players you have narcissists like David Zaslav running one of the ugliest entertainment companies right now, where every decision is made to help him attain his obscene $300M year-end bonus. In order to do that he had to increase Discovery's profits by some huge amount which is why he cancelled Westworld, threw out already-completed films, opposed fair pay for writers and actors, and decimated the contents of MAX. And yet he actually lost money.

It blows my mind that there are people on this site who cheer on the kind of mass consolidation that's likely to put someone like that into the role of entertainment gatekeeper for everyone when there are two companies controlling everything. People like that don't care about the product they control, they only care about manipulating it for their own gain.

Big business always comes up with excuses why they need to merge to "survive". It's driven by greed, the insatiable addiction to short term gain and the endless lust for growth and personal wealth by the guys ay the top, at any cost.

"oplies" at all levels by definition are bad for the public.

 

[boombox4]

So much has changed in three and five years (the age of those articles).

There may be 110 streaming services out there, but there are eight majors in the USA—-Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, Max, Apple, Peacock and Paramount+. They are not in competition with 102 smaller (in many cases microscopic) players.

This year, Hulu gets folded into Disney+, so there will be seven. Apple made a lot of noise about being a major, but never really executed. They’ll survive as a boutique streamer, but it’s not a major and not likely to be, so that’s six.

Four of the six (Amazon, Netflix, Disney/Hulu and Max) are profitable. The odds are heavily against Peacock and Paramount+ being profitable as stand-alones.

If it sounds familiar, it’s because it’s page 42 and them’s the facts, despite (from various posters) ignorance, antipathy toward big corporations, pre-pandemic articles and wild-ass guesses, all of which require me to repeat the facts as they exist today lest someone read that stuff unchallenged and mistakenly think it’s relevant.

I noticed that in your apparent omniscience you forgot to include Google as a key player, which -- through YouTube -- has 9% of all video viewers, according to the Nielsen graph in the article posted upthread way back on page #34. And YT has movies, too, even if you aren't a subscriber.

So YT's viewership chunk is almost 2% more than Netflix, almost 6% more than Amazon Prime, and almost 7% more than each of the other key players in streaming video. The point being that no one really knows how the state of Streaming Video services will be in 2030, much less 2040. Adweek's data will be stale next year.

As you're aware, every hour a video consumer spends watching YT, they're not watching any of the other services. I personally don't see that changing. Google are like the streaming gorilla in the room everyone is ignoring, but they are definitely a key player. The Nielsen 9% figure says as much.

These other big guns you've listed? Outside of Netflix and Amazon, they only get around 2% (or less) of all viewership each.

The fact is, we're just seeing the beginnings of a shakeout in video distribution and methods of consumption, and I don't think the dust will settle for another 5 year or so -- until streaming's total chunk of video consumption increases to over 50% or so (eventually it will be 100%, obviously). All one has to do is look at music streaming's progression and see how long it took for it to change the music distribution and music consumption models.

I have zero antipathy towards any of the corporate players in the video streaming issue. I really don't care. I'm one of the 9% who get my video entertainment from YT. It works. I don't watch "TV", never had cable, and don't use any of the streaming services. In that sense, I am an outlier.

But I see how streaming changed the music industry, how it's changing "radio", and I think it's way too early to see how streaming is truly changing "TV" and "Movies", because -- according to Nielsen -- just over 53% of all such video entertainment is still consumed via "traditional" means -- OTA broadcast TV and Cable. So if there are only four major streamers next year, they still are only getting a small fraction of all video consumption, according to Nielsen, because the numbers in the Nielsen graph probably won't change drastically for another 3-4 years. Maybe in a year or two those Big 4 you mentioned will get 2-3% of all viewership each. YT will still get nine, and Broadcast and Cable will still get 50% or more.

So, give your present day facts a few years to age. Then we will all see who the "winners" really are. Right now, when you compare video consumption to the history of music streaming's increasing dominance in all music consumption, we're still at the 2016 level of streaming adoption. In 2016 Streaming took up about 35% of all music consumption (according to the RIAA). Roughly where streaming video is now. Just three years later, music streaming surpassed 50%. It's around 60-70% now, although, as you and Mr. Eduardo have both mentioned in other threads, people use different methods for music consumption -- radio as well as streaming.

But all it takes is three or four years for the new consumption model to dominate. Then each of these companies being discussed in this thread may have greater revenues, and there undoubtedly may be other players that emerge as the video consumption model further changes.

Streaming isn't going away. It's only going to grow. Bigger pie, bigger streaming revenues.

 

[davideduardo]

Streaming isn't going away. It's only going to grow. Bigger pie, bigger streaming revenues.

But, just like network television in the 50's, we may see the major players come down to 3 or 4.

In the 50's, the DuMont network failed due, mostly, to the lack of additonal VHF allocations before the FCC required tuners in every set and manufacturers made UHF easier to tune. That lack was made up for by the addition of FOX, but that was a limited network in terms of time and originations and it came decades later.

So the idea of having 3 to 4 major streaming content suppliers seems reasonable, particularly as families adjust entertainment budgets in the (mostly*) post-COVID era.

* COVID is not over, despite what the national government has said. In fact, mask requirements are apparently returning in certain areas and locations.

 

[michael hagerty]

I noticed that in your apparent omniscience you forgot to include Google as a key player, which -- through YouTube -- has 9% of all video viewers, according to the Nielsen graph in the article posted upthread way back on page #34. And YT has movies, too, even if you aren't a subscriber.

So YT's viewership chunk is almost 2% more than Netflix, almost 6% more than Amazon Prime, and almost 7% more than each of the other key players in streaming video. The point being that no one really knows how the state of Streaming Video services will be in 2030, much less 2040. Adweek's data will be stale next year.

As you're aware, every hour a video consumer spends watching YT, they're not watching any of the other services. I personally don't see that changing. Google are like the streaming gorilla in the room everyone is ignoring, but they are definitely a key player. The Nielsen 9% figure says as much.

These other big guns you've listed? Outside of Netflix and Amazon, they only get around 2% (or less) of all viewership each.

The fact is, we're just seeing the beginnings of a shakeout in video distribution and methods of consumption, and I don't think the dust will settle for another 5 year or so -- until streaming's total chunk of video consumption increases to over 50% or so (eventually it will be 100%, obviously). All one has to do is look at music streaming's progression and see how long it took for it to change the music distribution and music consumption models.

I have zero antipathy towards any of the corporate players in the video streaming issue. I really don't care. I'm one of the 9% who get my video entertainment from YT. It works. I don't watch "TV", never had cable, and don't use any of the streaming services. In that sense, I am an outlier.

But I see how streaming changed the music industry, how it's changing "radio", and I think it's way too early to see how streaming is truly changing "TV" and "Movies", because -- according to Nielsen -- just over 53% of all such video entertainment is still consumed via "traditional" means -- OTA broadcast TV and Cable. So if there are only four major streamers next year, they still are only getting a small fraction of all video consumption, according to Nielsen, because the numbers in the Nielsen graph probably won't change drastically for another 3-4 years. Maybe in a year or two those Big 4 you mentioned will get 2-3% of all viewership each. YT will still get nine, and Broadcast and Cable will still get 50% or more.

So, give your present day facts a few years to age. Then we will all see who the "winners" really are. Right now, when you compare video consumption to the history of music streaming's increasing dominance in all music consumption, we're still at the 2016 level of streaming adoption. In 2016 Streaming took up about 35% of all music consumption (according to the RIAA). Roughly where streaming video is now. Just three years later, music streaming surpassed 50%. It's around 60-70% now, although, as you and Mr. Eduardo have both mentioned in other threads, people use different methods for music consumption -- radio as well as streaming.

But all it takes is three or four years for the new consumption model to dominate. Then each of these companies being discussed in this thread may have greater revenues, and there undoubtedly may be other players that emerge as the video consumption model further changes.

Streaming isn't going away. It's only going to grow. Bigger pie, bigger streaming revenues.

“Apparent omniscience”.

((chuckle))

As I’ve said before*, I just know how to look stuff up.

(*I only repeat myself because people make me)

Beyond that, fair. Make it nine streamers (eight when Hulu and Disney+ become one).

Google/YT isn’t merger bait. It’s a major tech player that legacy players are trying to compete against.

You’re still looking at the same successes and failures, as well as the same companies merging, striking distribution deals, or failing.

 

[kfbkfb]

So...what will the demise of Network TV look like...maybe...

All the ABC TV Network (for example) affiliates in the Midwest USA will be owned and operated by 1 company and there will be one TV studio where the (now called regional) news anchors present the regional news, local news would be only on the web site associated with the 1 company (text and short videos [as needed]).

No other TV studios (associated with the transmitter/channel) would be needed, maybe just small offices to acquire/edit/present local news on the web site.

Station ID(s) would be interesting though - a large list of call letters and channel numbers.

This would lower the cost of providing the content from ABC to TV viewers, possibly more channel sharing would further lower the cost of providing OTA TV signals (some transmitters could be shut off), maybe even stop transmitting HDTV, just widescreen SDTV + stereo sound (to save bits for more channel sharing).


Anyone have other scenarios - a slow shutdown of OTA (ATSC 1.0 digital) TV?


Kirk Bayne

 

[Kelly A]

Avid fans of networks are vanishingly rare. People watch shows, not networks.

That's a great point. The majority of consumers pay little attention to whether their favorite shows, whether on network or streamed, are from Paramount, Warner-Discovery, or Peacock. They know when their favorite show appears on their home menu, they select and click. The same goes for buttons on their vehicle radio. When they press this button, they hear something expected.
Other than what you mentioned with your long allegiance with Netflix, there are so many brands that make for an overall loss of brand loyalty.

 

[xkxrx]

• Peacock (finished Season 1 of "Poker Face". We'll be back when Season 2 drops.)

Thanks for the tip. Really enjoyed it. Season 2 should be out in the "middle" of this year.

 

[TheBigA]

It blows my mind that there are people on this site who cheer on the kind of mass consolidation that's likely to put someone like that into the role of entertainment gatekeeper for everyone when there are two companies controlling everything.

We're really already there. The tech companies have already won. If all the media companies pooled their streaming sites together, it wouldn't have the power or the numbers of Amazon Prime and Netflix. These are must-haves when you talk to TV consumers. Number 3 is Disney-ESPN-Hulu. Everything else is not even close. No one's demonizing the heads of the tech companies for their salaries. They all get off because we're all addicted to tech.

 

[PTBoardOp93]

Avid fans of networks are vanishingly rare. People watch shows, not networks.

But not non-existent. My mom was a CBS woman. Partly helped by her superstitions. NBC in Indianapolis was on channel 13, which was a no-no. She stopped watching Jeopardy! when the show moved from WISH-TV 8 to WTHR 13.

 

[michael hagerty]

Even with 7-8 major players you have narcissists like David Zaslav running one of the ugliest entertainment companies right now, where every decision is made to help him attain his obscene $300M year-end bonus. In order to do that he had to increase Discovery's profits by some huge amount which is why he cancelled Westworld, threw out already-completed films, opposed fair pay for writers and actors, and decimated the contents of MAX. And yet he actually lost money.

On the entire business, yeah---a metric f***ton---$13.3 billion. On top of the almost $7.3 billion he lost in '22 (he got the keys to WB on April 8 of that year).

MAX is in the black. And that one, as you note, he won ugly.

It blows my mind that there are people on this site who cheer on the kind of mass consolidation

It blows my mind, too. Mainly because I haven't seen anyone on here doing that.

What also blows my mind is that if someone wants to look at the facts of a business instead of taking an advocacy position....

that's likely to put someone like that into the role of entertainment gatekeeper for everyone when there are two companies controlling everything. People like that don't care about the product they control, they only care about manipulating it for their own gain.

Big business always comes up with excuses why they need to merge to "survive". It's driven by greed, the insatiable addiction to short term gain and the endless lust for growth and personal wealth by the guys ay the top, at any cost.

"oplies" at all levels by definition are bad for the public.

....yeah, like that one...that we're somehow "cheerleaders" for the other side.

Got the counter ready, @Mikey Radio ?

You'll notice (I hope) there's not much opinion or advocacy in what I write (allegations by some to the contrary). I come with facts.
I look stuff up. It's what I do. If I get something wrong, I say so and furnish the correct information.

Ditto @DavidEduardo, @TheBigA and that big softie @Kelly A . If you want to take the facts we provide and our experience in the business, learn from it and let it inform your advocacy, that's great.

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

This. I never watch sports. If you put me in the stands at a game---football, baseball, basketball, hockey---pro, college, high school---I have a great time. I LIKE sports.

But I can't sit in front of a screen and watch it for two or three hours. The only exception is getting invited to someone's Super Bowl or World Series party---and then that's more of a social thing----I'm talking to people and only glancing at the screen.

I am this way as well.

That's a great point. The majority of consumers pay little attention to whether their favorite shows, whether on network or streamed, are from Paramount, Warner-Discovery, or Peacock. They know when their favorite show appears on their home menu, they select and click. The same goes for buttons on their vehicle radio. When they press this button, they hear something expected.
Other than what you mentioned with your long allegiance with Netflix, there are so many brands that make for an overall loss of brand loyalty.

It is also a generational thing. When I was home for the holidays, I plopped down on the sofa with my 85 year old mom and watched TV. CBS Morning chat show, followed by Food Network, and then Turner Classic Movies until the local news came on.

I ditched cable/satellite and switched to streaming over a decade ago, and this once again reminded me of why I did that. It is maddening with all the ads and inane content (except TCM) but it's what she's used to.

The generation that's coming up now is more "I'm going to sign up for (insert streaming service) for a month, binge watch that new season of (insert hot new series) and cancel my membership until season 3 drops." They're using the medium in new ways and companies have to keep up. I watch a lot of YouTube, and they've just cracked down on ad blockers. The kids today...they found a way around that crackdown within a day. Sure, a lot of people will pony up the extra $$ for YouTube Premium, but why do that when you can just set your VPN to Albania?

And I've said this before, but the kids today (at least a lot of them) don't see that thing in the middle of their car's dash as a "radio." It's the infotainment system. A gateway to Apple Car Play and their streaming services. One of the things I like about my current career is that most of the people I work with are half my age or less, and they consume media in new and interesting ways. Can the legacy media companies keep up?

 

[michael hagerty]

So...what will the demise of Network TV look like...maybe...

But almost certainly not.

Sorry, go ahead:

All the ABC TV Network (for example) affiliates in the Midwest USA will be owned and operated by 1 company and there will be one TV studio where the (now called regional) news anchors present the regional news, local news would be only on the web site associated with the 1 company (text and short videos [as needed]).

No other TV studios (associated with the transmitter/channel) would be needed, maybe just small offices to acquire/edit/present local news on the web site.

How are things in 1954, Kirk?

There are stations already operating like this, on a much smaller scale---recording newscasts for multiple stations, sometimes in real time, sometimes by simply recording the anchor intros and outros for each market and assembling the pieces.

And on a larger scale, NBC hubbed all of the Master Control operations for all of its O&Os in one place---Atlanta----twelve years ago:

Outsourced Master Control Drives NBC O&Os

After going it alone for eight years, NBC Owned Television Stations outsourced its master control centralcasting to Encompass Digital Media. From a single hub in Atlanta, Encompass handles basic master control chores for the 10 NBC O&Os — their main channels as well as their subchannels as well...

tvnewscheck.com

Station ID(s) would be interesting though - a large list of call letters and channel numbers.

Really didn't occur to you that a computer can simply insert the correct legal ID, along with the market-appropriate promos and commercials, into the stream designated for each station, did it, Kirk?

 

[michael hagerty]

That's a great point. The majority of consumers pay little attention to whether their favorite shows, whether on network or streamed, are from Paramount, Warner-Discovery, or Peacock. They know when their favorite show appears on their home menu, they select and click. The same goes for buttons on their vehicle radio. When they press this button, they hear something expected.
Other than what you mentioned with your long allegiance with Netflix, there are so many brands that make for an overall loss of brand loyalty.

Right.

If the shows we watch on Netflix ("The Crown", "The Lincoln Lawyer", "Emily in Paris", "Lupin") moved to other streamers, we'd watch them on the new platform. I don't think of them as "Netflix Shows"---they have very little in common, apart from "Lupin" and "Emily" both being in Paris---they're shows that happen to be on Netflix.

Really, Netflix has had me continuously because they've always had something that I was watching. Amazon Prime, too. Every other streamer, there have been stretches where the shows I cared about were in between seasons. That's why scale and the size of the stable matter.